Rajasthan High Court Directs State To Consider Former Judicial Officer For Appointment To State Consumer Commission

Observing that State has used its discretion in a “vague and fanciful manner”, the Rajasthan High Court has directed the State to consider appointing the president of a District Consumer Forum to the State Consumer Commission in accordance with the recommendation of the Selection Committee.

The petitioner, who was working as the President in the District Consumer Commission, had his name, along with another President, recommended by the Selection Committee for appointment in the State Commission, but he was not appointed.

“There is no doubt that the State Government is the Appointing Authority and the discretion lies with it to accept the recommendations of the Selection Committee under Section 16(1A) of the Act of 1986 or not, but such discretionary powers exercised by the government must be exercised in a manner that is not arbitrary, unreasonable, or discriminatory,” Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand said.

The court said the principle of non-arbitrariness requires that government officials and agencies must act in good faith and in accordance with the law when exercising discretionary powers.

"This means that they must have a rational basis for their decisions and must not act in a manner that is capricious, whimsical, or discriminatory," it added.

The Court was hearing the former judicial officer's writ petition raising the grievance that in spite of recommendations made by the Selection Committee, the State Government has not appointed him as Judicial Member of Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, as well as Atul Kumar Chatterjee, were working as Presidents of the District Consumer Disputes Forum in Jaipur and Jodhpur, respectively, and both of them participated in the selection process for the post, along with other candidates. The Selection Committee recommended the appointment of both these individuals, but the State only appointed Chatterjee, and no orders were passed for the petitioner's appointment, the court was told.

Justice Dhand observed that it is a well settled proposition of law that two equals should be treated equally and unequals should be treated unequally. Treating the equals as unequals would offend the doctrine of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, observed the court.

It added that both Chatterjee and the petitioner “were sailing in the same boat…”

"In view of the above discussion, this petition stands allowed with direction to the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for appointment on the post of Judicial Member in the State Commission, if he is otherwise found suitable, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment," the court said, while disposing of the petition. 

Case Title: Kedar Lal Gupta v. State Of Rajasthan & Ors.

For Petitioners: Advocates Shiv Charan Gupta with Neha Goyal

For Respondent: Advocates Dr. Ganesh Parihar and Sameer Sharma

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment